Three news stories attracted my attention over the last few days. The first story appeared in Mmegi newspaper of August 22 with the story line, ‘US ravens spark titanic BDF/DIS quarrel.’
This story is about the inheritance and use of US leftovers in the form of two unmanned flying toys. The next story to get me curious also appeared in Mmegi newspaper of 25 August 2012 with the headline, ‘No nonsense escort for armed robbery suspects.’┬á In this story it is reported that about 30 officers of the Directorate of Intelligence Services (DIS) and Special Support Group (SSG) officers in a convoy of 10 vehicles had escorted robbery suspects when they were arraigned for mention at the Village Magistrates Court. The other story to interest me also appeared in Mmegi newspaper of August 29 titled ‘DIS enlisted in anti-bush meat poaching crusade.’
All these stories make mention of the DIS. The first story is about the DIS and the Botswana Defense Force (BDF). The second is about the DIS and SSG and the last story mentions the DIS and other security organs.
On face value the stories are just ordinary but on deeper scrutiny, they have a big story to tell and as such, it makes sense to take a critical look at the issues. At the onset, we need to appreciate that security agencies – DIS included, provide vital services for the protection of society.
We will recall that the DIS was established against widespread resistance with sceptics fearing that the secret agency was being established for use by incumbent political leaders to destabilize their opponents. Nonetheless, the DIS was birthed and has become an integral part of our society and seems destined to become a formidable, tenacious and very much dependable organ of the state.
Thus, it makes little sense at this juncture to be talking about dismantling or de-establishing it.
Unlike other government departments, intelligence services are often very difficult to dismantle once established. In view of this, and for any discussion on DIS to make a bit of sense, emphasis must necessarily shift focus from dismantling the DIS towards reforming and controlling the agency so that its operations are in synch with the core principles of democracy and prevailing morality.
The nature of intelligence gathering requires intelligence agents to straddle all manner of institutional arrangements in ways that can pit them against other security organs like the BDF and the Police in our case. The three stories cited above show that the mandate of the DIS seems to be limitless and essentially overarching which invariably makes them busy-bees that indiscriminately encroaches into the operational responsibilities of other security organs. This scenario has the potential to manufacture jealousy and rivalry amongst the security services.
Admittedly, intelligence officers are very talented and possess dangerous skills to source and analyse information for the security of the nation hence it is often compelling to use them limitlessly. However, it is advisable that they are kept away from standard law enforcement operations like escorting suspects. This we must do now as a matter of urgency because reducing their spheres of operation in the future will prove entirely impossible.
There are often fears that intelligence agents can never be declared redundant for fear that they could re-direct their skills and undermine the rule of law like when they engage in coordinated mercenary activities. Thus, it is important that they are constrained from entrenching themselves everywhere for even under best circumstances there are dangers of making them too powerful and obsessed with showing off their skills. 
It is noted that the DIS was formed just less than five years ago but already they boast of massive infrastructure and sophisticated resources for surveillance and related operations. The size of their budget makes them objects of envy by other security organs especially the Police who have struggled to acquire some of the cheapest vehicles on the market for well over 40 years.
The BDF has always claimed a somewhat privileged status compared to the Police and it must be hard for them to accept that an organ as new as the DIS could suddenly make them look ordinary as if lacking sophistication like expired celebrities. The alleged quarrel between the DIS and BDF over some leftovers is, in my view, a signpost of ugly relations that are fermenting between security organs and there is need for concrete interventions particularly in terms of limiting their expenditures and growth, especially the DIS even though it is difficult to determine what its right size would be.
Basically, the gist of my concern is that Botswana’s security organs ÔÇô those responsible for intelligence and those for law enforcement actually do the same work with the DIS appearing the busiest while doing very little. They may be having distinct mandates but their operations overlap in ways that make it difficult to know who is responsible for what. This has the potential to create competition among the organs and in the process set them against each other. Additionally, duplication of efforts implies waste of public resources.
Competition will manifest in their determination to demonstrate their worth and relevance especially in currying favour with the state president. Each of them would definitely want to appear more informed than the others and each would want to be the first to make a significant breakthrough or arrest. Competition for influence and resources may in the long term breed overzealous agents often willing to fabricate information so that it would appear like they are actually doing an excellent job. This over-determination to assert themselves as heroes will in the process push others away and those being pushed away would rightfully feel slighted and seek ways to win back their lost space. Ultimately, this competition for bragging rights will result in open rivalry and harmful relations with the potential to destabilize the republic. 
